- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42017 WP No. 10873 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 10873 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S VIMS COCOON MATERNITY AND SURGICAL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. NO.262/A, 2ND CROSS VIJAYALAKSHMI COLONY KADUGODI, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU - 560 067 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. K.M. VEERAPPA REDDY. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AMRITHA A. NAVADE, ADV., FOR SRI PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI T. SHAKER REDDY S/O LATE SRI A THIMMAIAH REDDY RESIDING AT NO.621 4TH CROSS, HAL 3RD STAGE BANGALORE - 560 075. 2. SRI M. SRINIVAS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA RESIDIN GAT NO.1154 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN HAL 3RD STAGE NEW THIPPASANDRA BANGALORE - 560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. VEERENDRA BABA, ADV., FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 DEFERRED FOR TIME BEEING V/O DTD 30.09.2021) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42017 WP No. 10873 of 2021 ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 PASSED BY XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-3) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.11.2019 passed on I.A.No.II to IV in O.S.No.899 of 2019 by the Court of XV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.899/2019 before the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore under Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC with a prayer for directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.60,77,500/- with interest at 18% per annum on Rs.55,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization. In the said suit, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had appeared before the trial Court on 25.02.2019, after the suit summons under Form No.4 in Appendix-B of CPC was served on them and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42017 WP No. 10873 of 2021 had filed two applications under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) r/w Section 151 of CPC namely I.A.Nos.II and III respectively with a prayer to permit them to defend their case. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed summons in Form 4(A) in Appendix-B and said summons was served on the defendants and on 25.04.2014 defendant no.1 had filed yet another application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC namely I.A.No.IV seeking for the very same relief which was sought in I.A.No.II and III. These applications were opposed by the plaintiff and the trial Court, vide the order impugned has allowed the applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that after Form No.4(A) in Appendix-B of CPC was served on the defendants in compliance of Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC, application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) r/w Section 151 of CPC was filed only by defendant no.1 and not by defendant no.2. Application of defendant no.2 was prior to compliance of Order XXXVII Rule 3 and Rule 4 of CPC by the plaintiff and therefore the said application was premature. The trial Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42017 WP No. 10873 of 2021 was therefore not justified in permitting defendant no.2 to defend the suit. 5. Order XXXVII provides for summary procedure in certain classes of suits. Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) & 3(5) of CPC reads as follows:- "Rule 3. Procedure for the appearance of the defendant XXX.. (4). If the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff shall thereafter serve on the defendant a summons for judgment in Form No. 4A in Appendix B or such other Form as may be prescribed from time to time, returnable not less than ten days from the date of service supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and stating that in his belief there is no defence to the suit. (5). "The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to be just. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42017 WP No. 10873 of 2021 Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is satisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant do not indicate that he has a substantial defence to raise or that the defence intended to be put up by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious: Provided further that, where a part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in Court". 6. From a reading of the aforesaid provision of law, it is apparent that after the defendant enters appearance in a suit filed under Order XXXVII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, the plaintiff is thereafter required to serve summons for judgment in Form No.4(A) in Appendix-B of CPC or such other form as may be prescribed from time to time returnable not less than 10 days from the date of service on the defendants supported by an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed and stating that in his belief there is no defence to the suit. 7. 7. In the present suit after service of summons as provided under Rule 2 of Order XXXVII in Form No.4 in Appendix B, defendant Nos.1 and 2 had appeared before the Trial Court on 25.02.2019 and on the said date in compliance of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42017 WP No. 10873 of 2021 Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of CPC, the plaintiff had served summons in Form 4(A) in Appendix-B of CPC. Rule 3(5) of Order XXXVII of CPC provides that defendants may at any time within 10 days from the date of service of summons as provided under Rule 3 (4) of Order XXXVII of CPC supported by an affidavit or otherwise request the trial Court to grant leave to them to defend the suit and if such a prayer is made, leave to defend may be granted to them unconditionally or upon such terms as it may appears to the Court. 8. From a reading of Rule 3(5) of Order XXXVII of CPC, it is apparent that 10 days time is granted to the defendants from the date of service of summons for judgment on them as provided under Rule 3(4) of Order XXXVII of CPC and the same is an outer limit to the defendants to make a request to the trial Court to seek leave of the Court to defend the suit. The same does not mean that such a request cannot be made by them earlier to the commencement of time, as provided under Rule 3(5) of Order XXXVII of CPC. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court granting leave to defendants nos.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42017 WP No. 10873 of 2021 and 2 to defend the suit. The writ petition therefore lacks merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS